- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3280 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
471 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 425684
So am I the only one who is getting a bit annoyed by this whole Greta Thunberg cult, or am I just too much of a cold hearted cynic that the world would be better off without?
I don't doubt the legitimate concern of her generation over climate change, after all it will fall to them to sort out the utter fucking mess that we have left the planet in, but all the awards that she is now being showered with are IMO just middle aged and old people's guilt over their own failure to save the planet's climate despite having had decades of prior warning, and who lost their way and succumbed to high carbon footprint consumerism somewhere between 1990s road protest villages and today's school runs in a 4x4. None of it feels sincere or genuine, it's more like, yeah, just take all these awards and shut the hell up already.
And parents whose children now protest every Friday or so are now engaging in pissing matches on twitter and Instagram to show off which one of their kids gets the most involved. As one commenter said, nothing good has ever come of a youth protest movement that was applauded by parents.
|>>|| No. 427752
It has occured to me lately that this place is basically Twitter for the chronically pretentious, but do me a favour and maintain the pretense, would you?
|>>|| No. 427779
Conservative MP Mark Field assaulted a Greenpeace activist today. Grabbed her by the throat as she was walking calmly past him. What a lovely man. Whatshisface got 150 hours unpaid work for throwing a milkshake at saville. What do you think Mark Field will get for this assault?
|>>|| No. 427782
Yeah, let's give legislative powers to schoolkids who want to ban petrol. I can see that working just fine.
|>>|| No. 427783
1. She was being a cunt
2. He ejected her from the building using a minimum of force
|>>|| No. 427784
Fucking hell >>427779, what utterly shameless bullshit you spouted there. I never thought I'd side with a Tory over an activist but here we are.
Go fuck yourself for being so disingenuous.
|>>|| No. 427787
I'm going to go out on a limb and say we're going to need more than that 30 seconds of video.
By that I am asking, what happened previously that lead up to this point? You don't just jump up and throw a woman out just for walking past. If that is indeed what happened then fair enough, he was bang out of order, but I have an inkling that's not the whole story is it.
|>>|| No. 427788
It's undoubtedly an offence of battery; the question is whether Field has a lawful defence. It's utterly implausible to believe that he feared immediate physical harm, particularly given the demeanour of the other attendees, so self defence is out. The protester was arguably engaged in aggravated trespass, but his use of force is both disproportionate and unnecessary for the prevention of that continued offence. He didn't ask her to leave, he didn't attempt to shepherd her out, he didn't wait for the police to deal with it.
I'm a conservative, I have no patience for these sorts of daft protest stunts, but two wrongs don't make a right. Field showed a disturbing lack of clear-headedness and restraint. He needlessly escalated what had until that point been a peaceful protest. If this video had involved a police officer rather than an MP, they would already be suspended pending an investigation. Police careers have been ended over less.
At a bare minimum, Field needs to be brought in for an interview under caution.
|>>|| No. 427789
>It's utterly implausible to believe that he feared immediate physical harm, particularly given the demeanour of the other attendees, so self defence is out.
Not universally. Self defence depends on how a would-be victim subjectively perceives a threat in a given situation. If somebody points a toy gun at you that looks real enough that you can't rule out in the heat of the moment that it's an actual gun, then what you do to that person, within reason, to avert that threat is generally covered under self defence.
|>>|| No. 427790
For the avoidance of doubt, this video from the same event shows appropriate uses of force. The rest of the protesters were removed by venue staff with a minimum of force, which is perfectly fine. What's not fine is shoving someone into a wall or grabbing them by the neck.
|>>|| No. 427791
You're entirely right that it depends on the subjective perception of the situation, but nothing in Field's behaviour indicates that he believed he was at immediate risk of harm. Field grabbed the woman as she was walking past him; he had to physically contort himself to grab her and use a significant amount of force to prevent her from walking on. That strongly undermines a claim of self defence.
The perception of the situation is subjective, but the reasonableness of the force is judged objectively relative to that perceived threat. What threat could Field have perceived that make his actions reasonable? If he feared that she had a concealed weapon in her bag, why did he remove her from the building rather than attempt to remove the bag from her grasp? If he feared that he might be struck from behind as he was sitting, how does that justify grabbing her around the back of the neck after he has already taken physical control?
His behaviour as evidenced in the video simply does not accord with someone acting to protect themselves from violence.
It also bears stating that the burden of proof lies with Field - there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he has committed an offence and it is incumbent on him to prove that he had lawful justification.
|>>|| No. 427792
This is what I love about modern life. Everything can be analysed into ridiculously minute detail. Mountains can be made of molehills. Blame must always be apportioned. The calls for retribution and punishment must be severe.
As long as someone can be blamed and shamed all is right with the world, that's the important thing.
|>>|| No. 427793
Fucking calm down, it was one lad being overdramatic. You're being just as bad in declaring this micro-event of a post to be the doom of society as we know it.
|>>|| No. 427794
Pretty sure claiming you thought a Greenpeace protester who wasn't paying you any attention is an armed and dangerous threat and in need of assaulting is the overdramatic thing here. It's interesting how quickly some people leap to his defence.
|>>|| No. 427795
His belief doesn't have to be objectively reasonable. You are allowed to neutralise a threat, so up to a point he can continue until he (subjectively) reasonably believes that she is no longer a threat. For all we know he might have been horribly confused after watching Killing Eve.
Then again some fash cunt got a bloke done for assault because he didn't like the milkshake that was thrown at him so who knows.
|>>|| No. 427797
Bit of a grey area, at the end of the day. Beating somebody to a pulp for pointing a knife at you isn't self defence anymore. Kicking the knife out of their hand and giving them a sprained wrist in the process still should be.
It technically hinges on reasonable force. And that then means that even if you thought that a toy gun that somebody was pointing at you was real, the amount of force you used had to be reasonable in defending yourself, and not excessive.
|>>|| No. 427801
I've always thought this was a bit dodgy. I've not been involved in much violence, but I know that if I did have to defend myself against an attacker, I wouldn't feel safe until they were on the ground and with a reasonable degree of certainty not getting back up to come after me when I leg it. But when you say it like that it sounds like I'd be going well beyond self defence.
Did you ever get that thing on the school bus where some tearaway chav would go around twatting people on the head with rolled up copies of Metro? You could yank it out of their hand but they'd just get a new one. You could push them away but they'd just try harder to annoy you then. The only actual solution was to give them a good smack around the jaw hard enough that they knew not to fuck with you any more.
Sage for neanderthal ramblings of a non-legal peon.
|>>|| No. 427803
The fuck's trout farming about it? If anything people would give far less of a shit if it had been a bloke.
|>>|| No. 427805
>I wouldn't feel safe until they were on the ground and with a reasonable degree of certainty not getting back up to come after me when I leg it.
If you've actually been attacked (or you were pretty sure he was about to go for you), that's a perfectly reasonable level of force. If you keep whacking them after they're on the ground, it starts to get dicey in a hurry.
>Did you ever get that thing on the school bus where some tearaway chav would go around twatting people on the head with rolled up copies of Metro? You could yank it out of their hand but they'd just get a new one. You could push them away but they'd just try harder to annoy you then. The only actual solution was to give them a good smack around the jaw hard enough that they knew not to fuck with you any more.
That's very much borderline. Being whacked with a newspaper is likely to cause little more than "trifling or transient" injury; boxing someone in the jaw could cause real damage, especially if you knocked them out. At the very least, you'll be asked why you didn't just get off the bus.
His belief doesn't have to be objectively reasonable, but the level of force has to be objectively proportional to the perceived threat. His actions simply aren't consistent with someone acting out of fear.
|>>|| No. 427806
>That's very much borderline. Being whacked with a newspaper is likely to cause little more than "trifling or transient" injury; boxing someone in the jaw could cause real damage, especially if you knocked them out. At the very least, you'll be asked why you didn't just get off the bus.
That's so miserable to read, trotting off with your tail between your legs?
If more people twatted the twat in their gabber, the twats might think twice about behaving like a twat in the first place.
(not the person you're replying to)
|>>|| No. 427807
A surprisingly large number of people die in tear-ups outside pubs and kebab shops. If you've got a decent hook, punching someone in the head is a shit lottery - they might get a fat lip, or they might end up dead or permanently disabled. Your head is a confined space full of major blood vessels and your brain is just a lump of fatty mush; through sheer bad luck, you can end up doing far worse damage than you would possibly expect.
Antisocial behaviour is a scourge, but we shouldn't be flippant about the consequences of violence. I would never question the right of people to defend themselves against violence, but there's a fine line between self-defence and retaliation. We can't build a civil society through incivility.
|>>|| No. 427808
>Did you ever get that thing on the school bus where some tearaway chav would go around twatting people on the head with rolled up copies of Metro?
Er... no? Where did you go to school?
|>>|| No. 427818
prediction: greta will pose nude for climate change when she turns 18
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 427872
I'm not entirely sure she has the right genes to be a stunner when she is an adult. She will probably still look very childlike at 18, which means she will not be fapping material for me personally. And then by her late 20s look like a middle aged housewife before her time.
|>>|| No. 427877
>I'm not entirely sure she has the right genes to be a stunner when she is an adult
she's a stunner now, you asshole
|>>|| No. 427880
I wonder if it's the same person going around picking fights with people over truly peculiar things. It has the same feel to it.
|>>|| No. 427931
>Meanwhile the temperature in parts of the Arctic reach 29C and the CO2 concentration in the air is 415ppm and climbing, the highest it has ever been while humans have existed as a species.
That's slightly disconcerting.
I guess it isn't much consolation that the Earth has been through much more sudden catastrophic events like the asteroid impact 65 million years ago and has bounced back.
Best to pack your rice then.
|>>|| No. 427935
More than slightly, Greenland's melting at a rate we didn't expect would happen for 70 years yet.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]